tion Company's Bill, were passed by the British Parliament, affecting the rights of the Canadians; and that the British Parliament taxed them for the maintenance of the Canadian civil list. What he claimed was, that you should rule them only in general matters, and that in their internal, he might almost say their municipal affairs, you should suffer them to govern themselves. No man could look without apprehension at that grasping Government which sought to spread its dominion from the confines of Canada to the extremities of the American continent; and against the danger of that Power he besought the House to guard.

Lord Stanley denied the applicability of Mr. Roebuck's principle of responsible government to Colonial administration. He was prepared to express, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, a cordial and complete approval of Sir C. Metcalfe's conduct. The Council had demanded of him that he should bind himself in writing not to make nor offer any appointment, save with their concurrence: in other words, that the whole patronage of the Crown should be placed in their hands. He denied the alleged analogy to the British constitution. The British Sovereign is himself irresponsible; he exercises no political power, all such power is exercised by responsible Ministers; it is influence only which is exercised by the Sovereign through his dignity, his state, and the hereditary associations of his Crown. This country has a House of Lords, which exercises both power and influencepower in the Legislature, influence in society and through public opinion. Almost all these circum

stances are wanting in a colony; and the application of the principles now advanced in a constitution to which they are so little germane, could lead only to the establishment of a republic. Lord Stanley then read several passages from a despatch written by Lord John Russell, when Colonial Secretary, to the Governor of Canada, enunciating the same principles which the present Colonial Ministry had declared itself prepared to maintain, and exposing the vague and unpractical character of the theory of responsible government in a colony. He would not admit the doctrine which attempted to invest the Colonial Legislature with a right to regulate its internal affairs: because the line of distinction between internal and imperial business was one which it would be found impossible to draw. He would now state, as he had been requested, the only sense in which he could recognise a principle of responsibility in colonial government. It was that the executive officers should be men enjoying the confidence of the Legislature and the people, and responsible to the Legislature; that the measures of the Governor should be taken on the advice of those responsible officers, but that the Governor should not be a passive instrument in the hands of them or of any other set of men. That was the principle which Sir C. Metcalfe had acted upon, and which Her Majesty's Government approved. When he resisted the pretension of a colonial party to the distribution of the whole patronage of the Government, he spoke without reference to the Colonial Office; for the Secretary of State did not now, either directly or indirectly, interfere in the least degree with

the distribution of office by the Governor: but he insisted on the inexpediency and danger of allow ing a political party, let its complexion be what it might, to have the sole power of appointing to and excluding from the offices of the colony. He then took occasion to pronounce a panegyric on Sir C. Metcalfe's character, on his previous services in the government of Jamaica, and on his recent expositions of the doctrine of responsible government. The only specific charge made against him was, that he had suspended, until the pleasure of Her Majesty could be taken, a bill, passed by a political party for the total disfranchisement of their political opponentsa most fit exercise of his precautionary power. He vindicated the arrangement by which the civil list of Canada had been secured through a British Act of Parliament; and he anticipated that the judgment and temper of Sir C. Metcalfe would yet win the good opinion of the Canadian people. The Canadian connexion, though not valuable to England in a military view, was very useful to her in a commercial one; but how much more important still was that connexion to the Canadas themselves in military and naval protection, in commerce, and in the command of capital. Was the almost nominal superiority of the mother country a price too high for Canada to pay in return for such advantages? He believed that her people would feel the value of these considerations, and be content that she should remain a happy colony of Britain.

Mr. Hume wished to know whether Lord Stanley approved of the conduct of Sir C. Bagot: because that conduct had received

the general approbation of the Canadians. The allegation, that the ex-ministers had demanded Sir C. Metcalfe's written undertaking to bestow no patronage but on their advice, was denied by those gentlemen. He himself had a very high opinion of Sir C. Metcalfe, but not of Lord Stanley, and he therefore attributed Sir C. Metcalfe's miscarriage to the trammels imposed upon him by the noble Lord. Dreading evil consequences from the continuance of the present state of things, he was solicitous to see both parties concede a little.

Mr. C. Buller claimed for Lord Durham the origination of the principle of responsible, or, as he would rather call it, Parliamentary government. It was plain that, where you had a body possessing the powers of legislation, the Ministers must be chosen from among persons acceptable to that body. His attachment to that principle led him to resist those who would endanger it by pushing it to a hazardous extreme. In the main, he agreed with Lord Stanley as to the meaning and limits of responsible government; and as to the facts, he was of opinion that Sir C. Metcalfe's conduct had been perfectly justifiable. After entering into the circumstances of the late rupture, he expressed his belief that the good sense of the Canadians would bring it to a favourable issue, at least if they were made to understand that the British Government in supporting Sir C. Metcalfe intended also to support the principle of Parliamentary government, fairly and moderately understood, as it had been interpreted by the noble Lord.

Lord John Russell took a brief

and favourable review of the governments of Lord Sydenham and Sir C. Bagot. The long illness of the latter had, perhaps, thrown political power more largely into the hands of the executive officers than would otherwise have happened; and that was the state of affairs on the arrival of Sir C. Metcalfe, whose conduct fully deserved approbation. He did not apprehend that the Canadians would persevere in idle and vexatious disputes, impeding their own happiness and prosperity. The notion that Canada would become an independent republic was a mere delusion, and the disadvantages which she must sustain from an absorption into the United States must be obvious to her people.

Mr. Trelawney said a few words; after which

Sir R. Peel pronounced a cordial eulogium upon Sir C. Metcalfe, who had been personally unknown to all Her Majesty's Ministers, and had been selected by them solely in consideration of his character and of his previous services. With respect to the particular question which had occasioned the schism, he desired to distinguish between the fitness of a Sovereign generally following the advice of his Ministers, and the fitness of his binding himself down to follow it, especially in the case of the Governor of a small community, where it might be very mischievous to make appointments wholly and exclusively in the spirit of party. He believed that the disposition of the Canadian people in general was much more favourable to the Government than some persons in this country appeared to suppose.

The discussion then terminated.

On the 8th of August Lord Palmerston entered into a critical review of the foreign policy of the Government, according to the course adopted by him at the close of former sessions. The substance of his speech was to the effect following: The system of foreign policy adopted by Government appeared to him to be one of unlimited concession abroad and of resistance at home. The first concession was that to America, of the disputed territory on the North-eastern boundary; which, instead of leading to harmony, resulted in another claim by the United States to the Oregon territory. The spirit was the same in the concessions to France: the Spanish Government were counselled to submit to degradation and insult in the Salvandi and Lesseps affairs; the French in 1830 were allowed to keep possession of Algiers; and the arrangement of France to take the protectorate of Tahiti, which we had declined, was acquiesced in. In fact, the line of policy undertaken by Government was founded on two leading principles-one was, to obtain temporary quiet, without regarding the sacrifices which might be made to secure it; and the other was, to shape their course, not with reference to the interests of their own country, but merely considering what might be its bearing on their position with respect to other states. It had happened to the late Government to be sometimes in a minority in the House of Commons; but among the great Powers of Europe its general policy was supported by a large majority. What might be the influence of the present Government he would not say; but he was anxious to draw the atten

66

tion of the country to the results already visible. He denied that what are called the war parties" in several countries have any effect on their respective Governments. He would contend, that even under the present Government, England was too powerful not to make any nation pause before it entered into war with her except on just grounds and in its own defence; but having laid down its ultimatum, it would not be satisfactory to the country if it receded on any other than fair and reasons. Recurring to the subject of Tahiti, he maintained that, although Mr. Pritchard's consular functions were necessarily sus pended, he retained his commission and character as Queen Victoria's Consul; and he finished by exhorting Government to make no concession which would tend to the dishonour of the country.

open

Sir Robert Peel replied, observ. ing that Lord Palmerston had not conformed to the usual rule of giving notice of his attack on the whole foreign policy of the Government. The noble Lord's speech seemed to him to have been prepared for the purpose of supplying some omission in his former

speeches, and of pronouncing a panegyric on himself, though, truth to say, it did not seem that any blank of that kind had remained to be filled up in his two preceding speeches; for they, like the one now just spoken, were not at all wanting in his own praise. (Laughter.) The assertion that our present policy was one of concession abroad and resistance at home might appear finely antithetical and high-sounding; but he gave it a flat denial. He proceeded to vindicate Lord Ashburton's mission; appealing to the thanks voted to that nobleman on the motion of Mr. Hume. The war party in France condemned M. Guizot for his concessions to England. As to Algiers, Lord Palmerston himself had acquiesced in the French occupation; and in Spain, Espartero's fall was precisely owing to the popular belief that he was the too fast friend of the British Government and was receiving support from it. Into the question of Tahiti he did not think it proper to enter; but he maintained that there never was a time when the name and honour of the British Government stood higher than at present.